Recent Comments

Great post. I find it funny just how often I see reason and logic on this site. I guess people don't know that the appropriate internet response is an emotional, caps-laden rant about how French sucks at what he does and is probably homosexual. Get it together, people.

i went to the gt game last year and hadnt been back until this past april 16.....holy crap theres a ton of construction. the new buildings look like theyre going to be incredible. i lived in pritchard when it was an all guy dorm my freshman year so im seriously jealous of the new dorms

I have a lot of respect for the knowledge you bring to the running game, blocking schemes, and blocking technique in particular. I'm not sure your passing breakdowns are in the same league though.

Things to keep in mind:

1. A lot of the throws where you are criticizing him for "locking on" are pre-designated based on the defenses alignment. In your first example, LT saw that Stanford had one on one coverage based on alignment. Stanford should win (and does win) that match-up the majority of the time with an out-route. A look-off wouldn't have mattered, it was man coverage. No safety help to distract with eye movement. Also, the throw was perfect and should have been caught, Riley didn't "break up the play" Stanford dropped it. Can't hang that one on Logan.

Same thing on the long Stanford completion. A classic "three step drop" timing route (out of the shotgun though so not technically a "3-step-drop"). Based on alignment, LT knows that Stanford will beat his man on the inside slant and he must get the ball there quickly. No look off necessary. The throw looks close not because LT stares him down but because of a low snap which slows down the timing. No LB in that alignment would crash that route based on reading LT's eyes. The only thing LT would have to worry about in a game situation for that route would be the LB rotating over towards the flat immediately after the snap to cover a CB blitz (which is why it's important to have him looking there rather then have LT "look off" the LB). This is a common read and great throw by LT, not the lucky one you claim it is.

- Your analysis on the first INT is spot on though, LT had his mind made up pre-snap where he was throwing it and rather then adjusting to the defensive coverage he trusted his arm to force it in. Big mistake.

The Second INT is too hard to tell which receiver LT is looking at to accuse him of locking on. Looks to me like there are double "IN" routes and LT makes the correct read against cover-3 defense (Inside route runs the MOTF safety off and backside route catches in the vacated space). However, reading the defensive coverage and reading the defense are separate things. Riley does a fantastic job at reading the route combo (T.Gray has done an amazing job at teaching his secondary what WR's are trying to do against them) and jumps the route. LT shouldn't have thrown the ball because Stanford lost the physical match up. With all day to throw, he should have moved on to his third progression.

I do agree with your overall themes though. Yes, LT has improved his mechanics greatly and Yes, LT still has a tendency to pick a receiver out pre-snap and latch onto him (as evidenced in the first INT, although I don't think he did this in the spring game as frequently as others do).

French, you still have the best free analysis of Tech football on the interwebs (and having the clips to correspond is awesome, shout-out Billdozer)! Keep doing your thing, never miss it!

Ha! I already have to get up before 10 to watch our nooners here in Mountain Time...

Baby steps.

We're going to need our defense and special teams to bring their best game every day next season. We saw in the scrimmages that we have some eager and hungry players on defense, which is promising.

This season I don't expect our offense to explode, but I do expect them to better control the game and not grab a defeat from the jaws of victory. This is very much contingent on whether we can establish a robust run game once again. However, I'm not ready to write-off LT3 or any other offensive player in 2013, just yet. Nothing would delight us more than to see a Hokie offense firing on all cylinders.

They basically carried the acc to second behind the sec. At least its good that Alabama lost at something.

The new ag building will house Food Science and Biological Systems Engineering. The sad, ugly, generally useless brick Food Science building will be no more.

^true

thou shalt not give wvu credit for anything

One of my buddies is doing grad school at Bama and he told me about how they do their student tickets and as much as I hate to like anything associated with that school they have it figured out.

I can't remember all of the details but basically you purchase your home tickets and then you are "obligated" to go to most (or maybe all, I can't remember) of the games. If you can't make the game or don't want to go you can "sell" your ticket to another student via their athletic website at face value. The more games you or your ticket attends, the more likely you are able to purchase tickets the next year.

This doesn't solve the problem of people leaving at halftime but it essentially ensures that people that want to be at the game can attend. Again, I can't remember all of the details but I personally think it's an upgrade over our current system.

How about scanning the tickets instead? That would cut down on the ticket paper airplanes that everyone seems to hate as well as increasing the quality of fans attending the games.

Also instead of total time, possibly go by either number of quarters per game or time per game. So if someone can't make it to every game, they could still get more credit than someone who went to every game and left at half time.

and those who go here now but have been coming to games and campus since 99...which sounds like forever ago